Evening everyone, Clearly, for both sides of town, the current gun laws aren't working. A vast bulk of the public have deep concerns about gun theft and firearm accumulation etc, while we feel marginalised, judged and governed by the square. From an objective outsiders perspective there would probably seem to be some sort of 'out of lineness' on both sides.....so let's talk about ours.

Assumptions are made about all sorts of things every minute of the day. We all do it.....to a greater or lesser extent. While some people are 'pathogically' racist, many form their view from not having any experience, or at least not a good one, with those of some kinda difference, thereby assuming they're all the same. Views towards gun ownership by the wider 'inexperienced' community is very similar. How many of us have drawn conclusions about certain groups or types of people based purely on what we've read in the paper or seen on TV? Pretty much all of us I'd reckon. My political persuasions aren't relevant to this debate but for whatever it's worth I'm far from right wing and by default know many many lefties. I'm also the first gun owner most people I know have ever met and don't worry, some massive assumptions were made about me. Naturally some people's views won't ever change but the vast majority simply don't know the full picture on why we shoot and it's a picture I've painting in the non gun ownerssnd lefty arena for years now and 98% got it. They got through me consciously bringing up the subject, listening to their side, showing them full respect then presenting them with the facts. Hell, my parents are so left wing they make Bob Brown look like Donald Trump and would've been quite happy for me to never get into guns. In not very long I showed them I was responsible, showed them the myriad of the benefits to hunting and that firearms are largely inert. 'Actually these things remind us of when we had that farm in the '70's!....nice bit of walnut on that 22 too...' they started to say. Then I showed them, not by demonstration, the benefits of suppressors. Now they're nigh on evangelical about firearms and hunting with suppressors and were the ones who actively encouraged me to voice all this publicly. People can change and the gun law debate is, as we well know, a massively politically sensitive one, and in politics image is everything and in politics deals are cut. We need to alter our image and cut a deal....and soon. Image -- publicly condemn and discourage any use of guns to push a political point. YouTube, forums and public displays. Shooting posters, figurines etc while no doubt a joke, massively works against us. This debate will only be won by united numbers and facts, not by feelings, opinions and least of all abuse. Be gentlemen and be cool, but by all means get cranky, get very cranky but use that passion and energy to get ALL SHOOTERS on board. Act don't whinge, otherwise you simply don't care enough.

Deal--- 1/ We wrap our gun safes in 10mm plate steel if you allow us an integrated barrel suppressed rim fire for private property use.. for example. None of us want our guns stolen, most would like a quiet 22. The suppressor debate will go on and on until methodical testing by an approved independent body conducted in a scientific manner is carried out. This will provide facts which will put the argument to bed. 2/ More comprehensive licence tests for an unmoddifiable 2 shot semi auto centrefire and rim fire. Could help to indicate drawing more thoughtful well read people in shooting and a 2 shot semi auto is undoubtedly a more humane way to take down game. 3/ competency based test for game licences for wider hunting area. Again more humane. Some people flat out can't shoot and don't care, not a good look and we all like to tell people how good we are. Maybe we have to prove it. All these ideas may well fall flat on their faces but it's worth a crack....tell me what you think

Ecobogan wrote:The suppressor debate will go on and on until methodical testing by an approved independent body conducted in a scientific manner is carried out. This will provide facts which will put the argument to bed.

In my view we need an Aussie-built integrally-suppressed rifle.All the Silencer laws I've read apply to something that is used to suppress the report of a firearm. If the firearm is integrally-suppressed then you're not adding anything to reduce the report.I don't think we can import them anymore though, I believe even air-rifles have their suppressors removed for sale in Oz.

For what it is worth, and I have posted this before, this (see below) is what the QLD SFFP want for our gun laws, every point can be argued based on facts, statistical information, it is time we got relevance back into the laws, instead of, as is the current situation, laws being formed around sound good political advantage and posturing, where they achieve results for politicians and parties, they need to be based on facts, so as they actually achieve a better result for the public.

QLD SFFP Firearms POLICY POINTS

• Support the removal and replacement of the NFA with a system that is much less complicated, one that is fair, practical, and maintains the standards of public safety, along the theme of, REGULATE THE PERSON NOT THE OBJECT.

• Support significant amendment to the QLD Weapons Act 1990, including changing the name/title to the, "Queensland Firearms Act", in order to better reflect it's purpose, remove onerous and costly provisions, that do not practically serve to enhance public health and safety, and to practically facilitate the legal use and possession of firearms.

• Support a requirement to base any firearms related statute only on statistical and historical evidence based reasoning.

• Retain the current licensing provisions with respect to checking and vetting processes.

• Retain the current provisions with respect to storage requirements.

• Retain the need to provide a genuine reason, remove any reference and or requirement to show need.

• Support primary production as genuine reason for obtaining approval for possession of a handgun.

• Support personal protection as a genuine reason to obtain a firearms license, including for a handgun.

• Support the removal of restrictions on legal uses of firearms including handguns, once a person is approved to use a firearm by being issued with a shooters license, they should be similarly deemed appropriate for all legal uses.

• Support the removal of the requirement to register long arms, given the extremely low rate of offending by licensed shooters.

• Support the removal of the 28-day waiting period prior to purchasing ANY firearm.

• Support the legalising of sound moderators on firearms.

• Support the removal of classification of firearms by either type or appearance, on the premise that once a person is approved to use a firearm by being issued with a shooters license, they should be deemed appropriate to use/possess any type of firearm legally available in Australia.

• Support the maintenance of the legality of firearms currently available in Australia.

• Support the separation of, practically facilitating the legal use and possession of firearms from, punitive provisions for criminal activities, and any regulation of objects other than firearms.

• Support increasing penalties for firearm related crimes.

• Support initiatives to improve the prevention of the illegal import of firearms.

Ecobogan wrote:I somehow didn't add in deal /2 that the 2 shot semi auto would be for cat B. This was written in a bit of a fit but a topic I feel quite strongly about.... obviously

I really can't see any purpose or market for such a firearm, so it seems a wasted effort to try to change legislation for it.Have you owned semi-auto rifles or shotguns in the past?They're good fun certainly, and combined with decent capacity make outstanding hunting firearms in many situations. But with two rounds there is just zero point to it. You get a much better result from a revolver carbine if all you want is half-a-dozen follow-up shots on-tap, or a pump or lever. A lever or pump is slightly slower than semi-auto, but at least they have decent capacity.You want to restrict it to two-rounds only, so no detachable magazine either to make up for the lack of capacity.

As a noob I don't get the point. For hunting maybe, but unless you are a bad shot or on an unstable platform like a helicopter again as long as placement is right. Also think about it, a manufacturer based in australia for the australian market, might sell like few hundred a year... the development and tooling cost amortized over total sales would make the semi auto like 3 or 5k and that would shrink the market even further.

Going back to you semi auto, I think it would be fairly easy if there is a mag system similar to howa/tikka but with a fixed floor plate, or better yet no floor plate but the mag well is part of the action. Load 2 rounds top feed, shot it then load two more.

magnum56 wrote:Support the legalising of sound moderators on firearms.

Are silencers illegal in any state of Australia? I thought they were legal in all states already.You need to be addressing the inability to get a permit passed for them, not the legality of them. Remove the genuine need part of the legislation and the Police will have no right to deny an application.

Not sure why my second post came in twice but anyway. I feel a bit self conscious for going on a rant like that but the united move to help change legislation, for me, runs deeper than just gun control laws but I'll get into that some other time. The 2 shot semi auto idea was just that. An idea I thought I'd float to you guys about the possibility of it being classified cat B as a db rifle is..if 'rapid fire' only lasted 2 rounds it might not be a concern to the powers that be. I haven't owned a semi auto but have hunted with them ,pre '96, often enough to know a follow up shot can be a very handy thing. It was simply an idea I was interested in hearing the shortcomings of. Magnum56 - I'd read the SFFP policy points a few days ago and in a sense am backing most of those points in my own way. I felt compelled to write in in an attempt to find ways of attacking this from different angles maybe, approach it laterally or find 'holes' in the legislation. My dad having a legal background is fairly convinced that with enough ground swell, a softened public and a well thought out persistent argument that changes could be made. I simply don't know but also am not content to sit back and watch.

Ecobogan wrote:My dad having a legal background is fairly convinced that with enough ground swell, a softened public and a well thought out persistent argument that changes could be made. I simply don't know but also am not content to sit back and watch.

If you could find some niche purpose it excels at then you could try pushing for it based on genuine need, maybe design a new competition that revolves around two quick shots, similar to clay shooting.But it's pointless while you are designing a semi-auto action as they are by definition CatD.

Ecobogan wrote:The suppressor debate will go on and on until methodical testing by an approved independent body conducted in a scientific manner is carried out. This will provide facts which will put the argument to bed.

In my view we need an Aussie-built integrally-suppressed rifle.All the Silencer laws I've read apply to something that is used to suppress the report of a firearm. If the firearm is integrally-suppressed then you're not adding anything to reduce the report.I don't think we can import them anymore though, I believe even air-rifles have their suppressors removed for sale in Oz.

I'll need to look into the definition of a suppressor or its legal term a silencer, depending on the definition we might be able to do what the Americans did to their muzzle loaders. What they did was permanently attach a suppressor to a muzzle loader and it was legal and no tax stamp is needed, the same thing might be able to be done within Australia. But this is a big but depending on the definition we would have to create a new firearm from scratch and then get it classified by police, as we can't just permanently attach a suppressor to a already existing firearm as that would lower the sound of said firearm.

There is NO such animal as a suppressor they were PATENTED AS A SILENCER people started with Suppressor so Joe public don,t get all scared.American inventor Hiram Percy Maxim, son of Maxim gun inventor Hiram Stevens Maxim and co-founder of the ARRL, is usually credited with inventing and selling the first commercially successful silencer around 1902, receiving a patent for it on March 30, 1909. bladeracer they are legal in NSW if you have that all important genuine need was at the range few weeks ago a mate turned up with his AK47 with a silencer on it always a hoot watching peoples faces when he starts it up even a D licence shooter has to sight it in lol

The suppressor debate will go on and on until methodical testing by an approved independent body conducted in a scientific manner is carried out. This will provide facts which will put the argument to bed. All these ideas may well fall flat on their faces but it's worth a crack....tell me what you think

magnum56 wrote:For what it is worth, and I have posted this before, this (see below) is what the QLD SFFP want for our gun laws, every point can be argued based on facts, statistical information, it is time we got relevance back into the laws, instead of, as is the current situation, laws being formed around sound good political advantage and posturing, where they achieve results for politicians and parties, they need to be based on facts, so as they actually achieve a better result for the public.

QLD SFFP Firearms POLICY POINTS

• Support personal protection as a genuine reason to obtain a firearms license, including for a handgun.

Dafuq?

Unless you're a meth dealer, or live in downtown Mogadishu, what sh*t are you into / what sh*thole do you live in that you need a firearm for 'personal protection' in this country? In the words of Pauline, "please explain". I'm genuinely curious to hear how that policy point "can be argued based on facts and statistical information".

My choice is what I choose to do, and if I'm causing no harm why should it bother you?Your choice is who choose to be, and if you're causing no harm then you're alright with me

Hang on BBSS there is already hand guns in Australia issued with a personal protection permit for protection and licenced such as ie security officers , police (personal weapon) shop owners in some cases , most outback servo's and shops body guards bringing in vip'sMy issue with the personal protection being used is with people coming to this country disrespecting our way of life and laws getting their hands on hand guns or any gun for that matter no different to our criminals and these are the people we need protecting fromWe shouldn't knock peoples opinions until we've walked a mile in their shoes if you've never been robbed , beaten, bashed, injured by forced entry toyour home or raped then we should take on board every bodies opinions even the ones against gun ownership ones that have lost loved ones to gunsThey have an axe to grind and push for change but you can't help but wonder if some one had had a concealable gun on their person for protectionat Port Arthur and was very brave maybe lives could have been saved yet people still want more gun control and keep using Port Arthur as one of theirarguments against guns instead of looking into other possible benefits of gun ownership for personal useMy question would be ''If the right people were licenced to have a hand gun at home or on their person I wonder how many less murders, home invasions,rapes, bashings, kidnaps, mass shootings would there be'' The answer would be we don't know until it happens which I doubt it ever will But we all presume or know a lot less because most potential muggers wouldn't attempt it on an armed person or house hold likewise with all other crimsIf gun ownership wasn't the answer then why do law enforcement carry one , banks, security guards and the list goes onThe governments have to start trusting people and not presume all of us are potential criminals and murderers we are trust worthy to be armed and sendoverseas to fight and die to protect people but back home we are unworthy to protect ourselves Ironic don't you think